Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Post Graduate Program, YMT Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, India
© 2025 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Study (year) | Type of teeth | Post type | Study group | Remaining structure | Evaluated outcome | Mean Fracture strength | Mode of failure (catastrophic) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 60, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group 1: CPC | Decoronated at the level of the most incisal point of the CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1 (CPC): 288.61 ± 51.74 N | ·Group 1: 100% |
· Prefabricated metal post | · Group 2: VPT | · Group 2 (VPT): 254.70 ± 55.66 N | ·Group 2: 60% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: PWFH | · Group 3 (PWFH): 127.01 ± 26.85 N | ·Group 3: 10% | ||||
· Group 4: PWFH-VPT | · Group 4 (PWFH-VPT): 218.34 ± 20.48 N | ·Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: PWFH-PP | · Group 5 (PWFH-PP): 233.63 ± 42.92 N | ·Group 5: 20% | |||||
· Group 6: PP | · Group 6 (PP): 201.39 ± 29.1 N | ·Group 6: 80% | |||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 90, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control: | Decoronated 2 mm incisal to the CEJ of the buccal surfaces | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | ||
· Prefabricated metal post | · 1,4: Parapost XH 1.5 mm | · 1,4: 18.33 ± 3.27 kg | ·1,4: 30% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | Narrow canals: | ||||||
· 1,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 1,1: 9.79 ± 1.29 kg | ||||||
· 1,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 1,2: 12.90 ± 1.64 kg | ·1,1: 0% | |||||
· 1,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 1,3: 4.55 ± 1.49 kg | ·1,2: 0% | |||||
· 1,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 1,5: 24.91 ± 11.53 kg | ·1,3: 0% | |||||
Flared canals: | ·1,5: 0% | ||||||
· 2,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 2,1: 9.04 ± 1.76 kg | ||||||
· 2,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 2,2: 12.87 ± 2.69 kg | ·2,1: 0% | |||||
· 2,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 2,3: 12.87 ± 3.54 kg | ·2,2: 0% | |||||
· 2,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 2,5: 31.95 ± 11.98 kg | ·2,3: 0% | |||||
·2,5: 0% | |||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Maxillary canines (N = 70, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | · Group 1: Titanium posts (ParaPost) + Silano-Pen (Bredent) + silane | 2 mm above the buccal CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 521 ± 153 N | No catastrophic |
· E-glass fiber post | · Group 2: Titanium posts + 30 μm CoJet-Sand (3M ESPE) + silane | · Group 2: 525 ± 91 N | fractures for | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + V-primer (Sun Medical) | · Group 3: 550 ± 149 N | any group | ||||
· Group 4: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + Alloy primer (Kuraray) | · Group 4: 408 ± 122 N | ||||||
· Group 5: E-glass FRC post (EverStick) | · Group 5: 321 ± 131 N | ||||||
· Group 6: Polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + resin impregnation | · Group 6: 267 ± 108 N | ||||||
· Group 7: Resin composite core only, with no posts | · Group 7: 175 ± 70 N | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Single rooted teeth (N = 80, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | Sound roots: control | Decoronated keeping a root length of 12 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Sound roots: control | Sound roots: |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Unicore | • Unicore: 1,472.78 ± 195.29 N | control | ||||
· E-glass fiber post | · EverStick | • EverStick: 1,265.94 ± 81.46 N | ·Unicore: 80% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Ribbond | • Ribbond: 976.74 ± 103.7 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 40% | ||||
· Parapost | • Parapost: 1,342.29 ± | ·Ribbond: 0% | |||||
Reattached fragments | 370.13 N | ·Parapost: 60% | |||||
· Unicore | Reattached fragments | ||||||
· EverStick | • Unicore: 1070.77 ± | Reattached | |||||
· Ribbond | 178.42 N | fragments | |||||
· Parapost | • EverStick: 1042.23 ± | ·Unicore: 58% | |||||
147.06 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 47% | ||||||
• Ribbond: 995.32 ± 88.75 N | ·Ribbond: 25% | ||||||
• Parapost: 1318.3 ± 240.9 N | ·Parapost: 68% | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | Uni-radicular mandibular premolar teeth (N = 50, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group I/CD: cast dowel | Decoronated | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group I/CD: 484 ± 41 N | ·Group I/CD: 90% |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II/FD: single glass fiber dowel | · Group II/FD: 338 ± 28 N | ·Group II/FD: 20% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III/AFD: glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel with accessory fiber dowels | · Group III/AFD: 352 ± 34 N | ·Group III/AFD: 30% | ||||
· Group IV/DL: relined glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel | · Group IV/DL: 368 ± 24 N | ·Group IV/DL: 30% | |||||
· Group V/RRR: dowels formed with the help of polyethylene fiber ribbon-reinforced resin composite | · Group V/RRR: 256 ± 22 N | ·Group V/RRR: 0% | |||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Maxillary incisors (N = 75, n = 15) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control group | Decoronated 2 mm above CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Control: 437.87 ± 32.81 N | Glass fiber post |
· Polyethylene fiber post | Glass fiber post | Glass fiber post | ·10 mm: 0% | ||||
· 10 mm | · 10 mm: | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | 740.21 ± 29.87 N | Ribbond fiber post | |||||
Ribbond fiber post | · 5 mm: | ·10 mm: 40% | |||||
· 10 mm | 425.18 ± 42.73 N | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | Ribbond fiber post | ||||||
· 10 mm: | |||||||
216.93 ± 53.39 N | |||||||
· 5 mm: | |||||||
299.62 ± 53.42 N | |||||||
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | Mandibular premolars (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | · Group 1: Only dual cure resin cement | Decoronated root length: 10 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 181.26 ± 2.90 N | ·Group 1: 73% |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 2: Ribbond | · Group 2: 279.56 ± 0.80 N | ·Group 2: 0% | ||||
· Group 3: EverStick | · Group 3: 224.09 ± 3.43 N | ·Group 3: 60% | |||||
(vertical fractures simulated in all three groups) | · Group 4: 328.14 ± 1.06 N | ||||||
· Group 4: Unfractured control group | |||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | Maxillary premolars (N = 100, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group 1: sound teeth (positive control) | Class II MOD cavities,1m above CEJ on both sides, with palatal extension cusps reduced to dimension 3 mm thick and 3.5 mm in height | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 0.83 ± 0.15 N | · Group 1: 0% |
· Prefabricated polyfiber post | · Group 2: unrestored (negative control) | · Group 2: 0.14 ± 0.05 N | · Group 2: 50% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3:MR | · Group 3: 0.43 ± 0.09 N | · Group 3: 50% | ||||
· Group 4:FR+ MR | · Group 4: 0.53 ± 0.07 N | · Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: glass fiber post (Reforpost) + MR | · Group 5: 0.41 ± 0.12 N | · Group 5: 0% | |||||
· Group 6: Reforpost + FR + MR | · Group 6: 0.48 ± 0.13 N | · Group 6: 10% | |||||
· Group 7:polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + MR | · Group 7: 0.50 ± 0.17 N | · Group 7: 50% | |||||
· Group 8: Ribbond + FR + MR | · Group 8: 0.54 ± 0.14 N | · Group 8: 10% | |||||
· Group 9: polyfiber post (Spirapost) + MR | · Group 9: 0.79 ± 0.16 N | · Group 9: 30% | |||||
· Group 10: Spirapost + FR + MR | · Group 10: 0.84 ± 0.11 N | · Group 10: 20% | |||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | Reattached maxillary central incisor fragments (N = 60, n = 30) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Group 1: labiopalatal fracture | Group 1: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Group 1: | Group 1: |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | Group 2: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · Subgroup 1: 568.4 ± 18.65 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 20% | |||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 519.7 ± 22.36 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | |||||
Group 2: palatolabial fracture | Group 2: | ||||||
· Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | · Subgroup 1: 533.4 ± 19.62 N | Group 2: | |||||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 13.3% | |||||
· Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Mandibular first premolars (N = 90, n = 10) | · E-glass fiber post | Post length 2/3rd of the canal: | Decoronated at CEJ, root length 15 mm | Fracture resistance | · Subgroup 1A: 179.75 ± 33.52 N | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1B: 166.84 ± 33.11 N | |||||
· Subgroup 1B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 1C: 250.33 ± 15.40 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 1C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1D: 201.39 ± 41.44 | ||||||
· Subgroup 1D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Post length 1/2 of the canal: | · Subgroup 2A: 146.44 ± 13.53 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2B: 159.97 ± 34.06 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 2C: 224.2 ± 32.9 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2D: 204.07 ± 29.63 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Control group: core without post | Control group: 57.34 ± 14.03 N | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Maxillary incisors (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | Group A: labiopalatal fracture | Labiopalatal: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance | Group A: | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · A1: Ribbond | Palatolabial: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · A1: 517.4 ± 72.0 N | ||||
· A2: EverStick | · A2: 725.5 ± 59.6 N | ||||||
Group B: palatolabial fracture | Group B: | ||||||
· B1: Ribbond | · B1: 423.2 ± 80.5 N | ||||||
· B2: EverStick | · B2: 617.0 ± 81.8 N | ||||||
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Mandibularfirst premolars (N = 48, n = 12) | · Zirconia post | · Group I: Zirconia post, | Not mentioned | Fracture resistance | · Group I: 463.5 ± 14.3 N | Not applicable |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II: Glass fiber post, | · Group II: 425.2 ± 23.5 N | |||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III: polyethylene -woven fiber posts, | · Group III: 410.4 ± 18.6 N | |||||
· Quartz post | · Group IV: Quartz post | · Group IV: 385.2 ± 14.2 N |
CEJ, cementoenamel junction; CPC, cast post and core; FR, flowable resin; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; MR, microhybrid resin; PP, Parapost Plus post; PWFH, polyethylene woven fiber/Heliobond resin; VPT, vario-passive titanium post.
Study (year) | Material used to form custom polyethylene fiber posts | Luting cement used | Thermocycling | Fracture testing equipment | Statistical analysis software | Statistical tests performed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Variolink, Ivoclar | · Group 1 and 2: Zinc phosphate cement | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4202 | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group 3, 4, 5 and 6: Variolink, Ivoclar | · Student Newman-Keuls grouping | |||||
· 2 × 2 chi-square analysis | ||||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · 1,1; 1,2; 1,4: Cement-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 5655 | SYSTAT | · Two-way ANOVA |
· 2,1; 2,2: Flow-it Self, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · ANOVA test | |||||
· 1,3; 1,5; 2,3; 2,5: Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · Independent Student t-test | |||||
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Subjected to thermocycling for 6,000 cycles between 5° and 55°C | Zwick ROELL Z2.5MA Universal Testing Machine | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Independent t-test | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Group I/CD: Zinc phosphate, SS White | Not performed | Zwick Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group II/FD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Fischer exact test | |||||
· Group III/AFD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group IV/DL: Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group V/RRR: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Monocem, Shofu | Monocem, Shofu | Not performed | LR 100 K digital Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 11.0 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
· Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test | ||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4444 | SPSS version 17 | · Kolmogorov-Smirnov test |
· One-way ANOVA | ||||||
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | ParaCore, Coltene | ParaCore, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Excel and SPSS | · Student t-test |
· Chi-square test | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Luxa core Z, DMG | Luxa core Z, DMG | Not performed | Hounsfield Universal Testing Machine, S-series | Not mentioned | · One-way and two-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni adjustment test | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Solocem, Coltene | Solocem, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 23 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | SPSS | · One-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni post hoc test |
Study |
Specimens’ set-up |
Sample size calculation |
Randomization |
Outcome | Statistical methods |
Materials and methods |
Evaluation and results |
“Funding had no influence” |
Risk of bias |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teeth size and form standardization | Teeth free of caries or restorations | Randomization of specimens | Implementation of sequence generation | Standardized teeth preparation | Standardized and replicable methodology | Material application measures were followed | Blinded Evaluation | Complete results | ||||||
Ramesh et al. [36] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcan and Valandro [31] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Braga et al. [26] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Aggarwal et al. [35] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Jindal et al. [30] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Sirimai et al. [33] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcopur et al. [32] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Newman et al. [18] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Khurana et al. [28] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Kumar et al. [29] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Batra et al. [27] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Thakur and Ramarao [34] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Source | % of non-catastrophic fractures (repairable/favorable) | |
---|---|---|
Ribbond vs ETT without posts | ETT without posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | 100% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 27% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ribbond posts vs cast metal posts | Cast metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 0% | 90% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 10% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated metal posts | Prefabricated metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 20% | 90% |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 70% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 40% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated glass fiber posts | Prefabricated glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 100% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 20% | 100% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 80% | 100% |
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | 70% | 70% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | 80% | 100% |
Ribbond vs custom e-glass fiber posts | Custom e-glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 60% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 40% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 100% |
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
FUNDING/SUPPORT
None.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Project administration: Vartak MA, Fanibunda U. Data curation, Funding acquisition: Vartak MA. Investigation: Vartak MA, Hegde SR, Fanibunda U. Methodology: Vartak MA, Hegde SR. Resources, Software, Visualization: Vartak MA, Fanibunda U. Supervision: Fanibunda U, Hegde VR. Validation: Fanibunda U. Writing - original draft: Vartak MA. Writing - review & editing: Vartak MA, Fanibunda U. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
DATA SHARING STATEMENT
The datasets are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Study (year) | Type of teeth | Post type | Study group | Remaining structure | Evaluated outcome | Mean Fracture strength | Mode of failure (catastrophic) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 60, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group 1: CPC | Decoronated at the level of the most incisal point of the CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1 (CPC): 288.61 ± 51.74 N | ·Group 1: 100% |
· Prefabricated metal post | · Group 2: VPT | · Group 2 (VPT): 254.70 ± 55.66 N | ·Group 2: 60% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: PWFH | · Group 3 (PWFH): 127.01 ± 26.85 N | ·Group 3: 10% | ||||
· Group 4: PWFH-VPT | · Group 4 (PWFH-VPT): 218.34 ± 20.48 N | ·Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: PWFH-PP | · Group 5 (PWFH-PP): 233.63 ± 42.92 N | ·Group 5: 20% | |||||
· Group 6: PP | · Group 6 (PP): 201.39 ± 29.1 N | ·Group 6: 80% | |||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 90, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control: | Decoronated 2 mm incisal to the CEJ of the buccal surfaces | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | ||
· Prefabricated metal post | · 1,4: Parapost XH 1.5 mm | · 1,4: 18.33 ± 3.27 kg | ·1,4: 30% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | Narrow canals: | ||||||
· 1,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 1,1: 9.79 ± 1.29 kg | ||||||
· 1,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 1,2: 12.90 ± 1.64 kg | ·1,1: 0% | |||||
· 1,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 1,3: 4.55 ± 1.49 kg | ·1,2: 0% | |||||
· 1,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 1,5: 24.91 ± 11.53 kg | ·1,3: 0% | |||||
Flared canals: | ·1,5: 0% | ||||||
· 2,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 2,1: 9.04 ± 1.76 kg | ||||||
· 2,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 2,2: 12.87 ± 2.69 kg | ·2,1: 0% | |||||
· 2,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 2,3: 12.87 ± 3.54 kg | ·2,2: 0% | |||||
· 2,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 2,5: 31.95 ± 11.98 kg | ·2,3: 0% | |||||
·2,5: 0% | |||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Maxillary canines (N = 70, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | · Group 1: Titanium posts (ParaPost) + Silano-Pen (Bredent) + silane | 2 mm above the buccal CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 521 ± 153 N | No catastrophic |
· E-glass fiber post | · Group 2: Titanium posts + 30 μm CoJet-Sand (3M ESPE) + silane | · Group 2: 525 ± 91 N | fractures for | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + V-primer (Sun Medical) | · Group 3: 550 ± 149 N | any group | ||||
· Group 4: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + Alloy primer (Kuraray) | · Group 4: 408 ± 122 N | ||||||
· Group 5: E-glass FRC post (EverStick) | · Group 5: 321 ± 131 N | ||||||
· Group 6: Polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + resin impregnation | · Group 6: 267 ± 108 N | ||||||
· Group 7: Resin composite core only, with no posts | · Group 7: 175 ± 70 N | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Single rooted teeth (N = 80, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | Sound roots: control | Decoronated keeping a root length of 12 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Sound roots: control | Sound roots: |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Unicore | • Unicore: 1,472.78 ± 195.29 N | control | ||||
· E-glass fiber post | · EverStick | • EverStick: 1,265.94 ± 81.46 N | ·Unicore: 80% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Ribbond | • Ribbond: 976.74 ± 103.7 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 40% | ||||
· Parapost | • Parapost: 1,342.29 ± | ·Ribbond: 0% | |||||
Reattached fragments | 370.13 N | ·Parapost: 60% | |||||
· Unicore | Reattached fragments | ||||||
· EverStick | • Unicore: 1070.77 ± | Reattached | |||||
· Ribbond | 178.42 N | fragments | |||||
· Parapost | • EverStick: 1042.23 ± | ·Unicore: 58% | |||||
147.06 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 47% | ||||||
• Ribbond: 995.32 ± 88.75 N | ·Ribbond: 25% | ||||||
• Parapost: 1318.3 ± 240.9 N | ·Parapost: 68% | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | Uni-radicular mandibular premolar teeth (N = 50, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group I/CD: cast dowel | Decoronated | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group I/CD: 484 ± 41 N | ·Group I/CD: 90% |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II/FD: single glass fiber dowel | · Group II/FD: 338 ± 28 N | ·Group II/FD: 20% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III/AFD: glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel with accessory fiber dowels | · Group III/AFD: 352 ± 34 N | ·Group III/AFD: 30% | ||||
· Group IV/DL: relined glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel | · Group IV/DL: 368 ± 24 N | ·Group IV/DL: 30% | |||||
· Group V/RRR: dowels formed with the help of polyethylene fiber ribbon-reinforced resin composite | · Group V/RRR: 256 ± 22 N | ·Group V/RRR: 0% | |||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Maxillary incisors (N = 75, n = 15) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control group | Decoronated 2 mm above CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Control: 437.87 ± 32.81 N | Glass fiber post |
· Polyethylene fiber post | Glass fiber post | Glass fiber post | ·10 mm: 0% | ||||
· 10 mm | · 10 mm: | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | 740.21 ± 29.87 N | Ribbond fiber post | |||||
Ribbond fiber post | · 5 mm: | ·10 mm: 40% | |||||
· 10 mm | 425.18 ± 42.73 N | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | Ribbond fiber post | ||||||
· 10 mm: | |||||||
216.93 ± 53.39 N | |||||||
· 5 mm: | |||||||
299.62 ± 53.42 N | |||||||
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | Mandibular premolars (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | · Group 1: Only dual cure resin cement | Decoronated root length: 10 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 181.26 ± 2.90 N | ·Group 1: 73% |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 2: Ribbond | · Group 2: 279.56 ± 0.80 N | ·Group 2: 0% | ||||
· Group 3: EverStick | · Group 3: 224.09 ± 3.43 N | ·Group 3: 60% | |||||
(vertical fractures simulated in all three groups) | · Group 4: 328.14 ± 1.06 N | ||||||
· Group 4: Unfractured control group | |||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | Maxillary premolars (N = 100, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group 1: sound teeth (positive control) | Class II MOD cavities,1m above CEJ on both sides, with palatal extension cusps reduced to dimension 3 mm thick and 3.5 mm in height | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 0.83 ± 0.15 N | · Group 1: 0% |
· Prefabricated polyfiber post | · Group 2: unrestored (negative control) | · Group 2: 0.14 ± 0.05 N | · Group 2: 50% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3:MR | · Group 3: 0.43 ± 0.09 N | · Group 3: 50% | ||||
· Group 4:FR+ MR | · Group 4: 0.53 ± 0.07 N | · Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: glass fiber post (Reforpost) + MR | · Group 5: 0.41 ± 0.12 N | · Group 5: 0% | |||||
· Group 6: Reforpost + FR + MR | · Group 6: 0.48 ± 0.13 N | · Group 6: 10% | |||||
· Group 7:polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + MR | · Group 7: 0.50 ± 0.17 N | · Group 7: 50% | |||||
· Group 8: Ribbond + FR + MR | · Group 8: 0.54 ± 0.14 N | · Group 8: 10% | |||||
· Group 9: polyfiber post (Spirapost) + MR | · Group 9: 0.79 ± 0.16 N | · Group 9: 30% | |||||
· Group 10: Spirapost + FR + MR | · Group 10: 0.84 ± 0.11 N | · Group 10: 20% | |||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | Reattached maxillary central incisor fragments (N = 60, n = 30) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Group 1: labiopalatal fracture | Group 1: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Group 1: | Group 1: |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | Group 2: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · Subgroup 1: 568.4 ± 18.65 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 20% | |||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 519.7 ± 22.36 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | |||||
Group 2: palatolabial fracture | Group 2: | ||||||
· Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | · Subgroup 1: 533.4 ± 19.62 N | Group 2: | |||||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 13.3% | |||||
· Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Mandibular first premolars (N = 90, n = 10) | · E-glass fiber post | Post length 2/3rd of the canal: | Decoronated at CEJ, root length 15 mm | Fracture resistance | · Subgroup 1A: 179.75 ± 33.52 N | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1B: 166.84 ± 33.11 N | |||||
· Subgroup 1B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 1C: 250.33 ± 15.40 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 1C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1D: 201.39 ± 41.44 | ||||||
· Subgroup 1D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Post length 1/2 of the canal: | · Subgroup 2A: 146.44 ± 13.53 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2B: 159.97 ± 34.06 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 2C: 224.2 ± 32.9 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2D: 204.07 ± 29.63 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Control group: core without post | Control group: 57.34 ± 14.03 N | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Maxillary incisors (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | Group A: labiopalatal fracture | Labiopalatal: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance | Group A: | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · A1: Ribbond | Palatolabial: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · A1: 517.4 ± 72.0 N | ||||
· A2: EverStick | · A2: 725.5 ± 59.6 N | ||||||
Group B: palatolabial fracture | Group B: | ||||||
· B1: Ribbond | · B1: 423.2 ± 80.5 N | ||||||
· B2: EverStick | · B2: 617.0 ± 81.8 N | ||||||
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Mandibularfirst premolars (N = 48, n = 12) | · Zirconia post | · Group I: Zirconia post, | Not mentioned | Fracture resistance | · Group I: 463.5 ± 14.3 N | Not applicable |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II: Glass fiber post, | · Group II: 425.2 ± 23.5 N | |||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III: polyethylene -woven fiber posts, | · Group III: 410.4 ± 18.6 N | |||||
· Quartz post | · Group IV: Quartz post | · Group IV: 385.2 ± 14.2 N |
CEJ, cementoenamel junction; CPC, cast post and core; FR, flowable resin; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; MR, microhybrid resin; PP, Parapost Plus post; PWFH, polyethylene woven fiber/Heliobond resin; VPT, vario-passive titanium post.
Study (year) | Material used to form custom polyethylene fiber posts | Luting cement used | Thermocycling | Fracture testing equipment | Statistical analysis software | Statistical tests performed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Variolink, Ivoclar | · Group 1 and 2: Zinc phosphate cement | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4202 | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group 3, 4, 5 and 6: Variolink, Ivoclar | · Student Newman-Keuls grouping | |||||
· 2 × 2 chi-square analysis | ||||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · 1,1; 1,2; 1,4: Cement-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 5655 | SYSTAT | · Two-way ANOVA |
· 2,1; 2,2: Flow-it Self, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · ANOVA test | |||||
· 1,3; 1,5; 2,3; 2,5: Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · Independent Student t-test | |||||
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Subjected to thermocycling for 6,000 cycles between 5° and 55°C | Zwick ROELL Z2.5MA Universal Testing Machine | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Independent t-test | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Group I/CD: Zinc phosphate, SS White | Not performed | Zwick Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group II/FD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Fischer exact test | |||||
· Group III/AFD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group IV/DL: Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group V/RRR: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Monocem, Shofu | Monocem, Shofu | Not performed | LR 100 K digital Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 11.0 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
· Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test | ||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4444 | SPSS version 17 | · Kolmogorov-Smirnov test |
· One-way ANOVA | ||||||
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | ParaCore, Coltene | ParaCore, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Excel and SPSS | · Student t-test |
· Chi-square test | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Luxa core Z, DMG | Luxa core Z, DMG | Not performed | Hounsfield Universal Testing Machine, S-series | Not mentioned | · One-way and two-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni adjustment test | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Solocem, Coltene | Solocem, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 23 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | SPSS | · One-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni post hoc test |
Study |
Specimens’ set-up |
Sample size calculation |
Randomization |
Outcome | Statistical methods |
Materials and methods |
Evaluation and results |
“Funding had no influence” |
Risk of bias |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teeth size and form standardization | Teeth free of caries or restorations | Randomization of specimens | Implementation of sequence generation | Standardized teeth preparation | Standardized and replicable methodology | Material application measures were followed | Blinded Evaluation | Complete results | ||||||
Ramesh et al. [36] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcan and Valandro [31] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Braga et al. [26] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Aggarwal et al. [35] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Jindal et al. [30] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Sirimai et al. [33] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcopur et al. [32] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Newman et al. [18] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Khurana et al. [28] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Kumar et al. [29] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Batra et al. [27] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Thakur and Ramarao [34] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Source | % of non-catastrophic fractures (repairable/favorable) | |
---|---|---|
Ribbond vs ETT without posts | ETT without posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | 100% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 27% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ribbond posts vs cast metal posts | Cast metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 0% | 90% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 10% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated metal posts | Prefabricated metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 20% | 90% |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 70% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 40% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated glass fiber posts | Prefabricated glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 100% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 20% | 100% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 80% | 100% |
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | 70% | 70% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | 80% | 100% |
Ribbond vs custom e-glass fiber posts | Custom e-glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 60% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 40% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 100% |
Study (year) | Type of teeth | Post type | Study group | Remaining structure | Evaluated outcome | Mean Fracture strength | Mode of failure (catastrophic) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 60, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group 1: CPC | Decoronated at the level of the most incisal point of the CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1 (CPC): 288.61 ± 51.74 N | ·Group 1: 100% |
· Prefabricated metal post | · Group 2: VPT | · Group 2 (VPT): 254.70 ± 55.66 N | ·Group 2: 60% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: PWFH | · Group 3 (PWFH): 127.01 ± 26.85 N | ·Group 3: 10% | ||||
· Group 4: PWFH-VPT | · Group 4 (PWFH-VPT): 218.34 ± 20.48 N | ·Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: PWFH-PP | · Group 5 (PWFH-PP): 233.63 ± 42.92 N | ·Group 5: 20% | |||||
· Group 6: PP | · Group 6 (PP): 201.39 ± 29.1 N | ·Group 6: 80% | |||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Maxillary central incisors (N = 90, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control: | Decoronated 2 mm incisal to the CEJ of the buccal surfaces | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | ||
· Prefabricated metal post | · 1,4: Parapost XH 1.5 mm | · 1,4: 18.33 ± 3.27 kg | ·1,4: 30% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | Narrow canals: | ||||||
· 1,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 1,1: 9.79 ± 1.29 kg | ||||||
· 1,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 1,2: 12.90 ± 1.64 kg | ·1,1: 0% | |||||
· 1,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 1,3: 4.55 ± 1.49 kg | ·1,2: 0% | |||||
· 1,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 1,5: 24.91 ± 11.53 kg | ·1,3: 0% | |||||
Flared canals: | ·1,5: 0% | ||||||
· 2,1: Fiberkor fiber post 1.5 mm | · 2,1: 9.04 ± 1.76 kg | ||||||
· 2,2: Luscent fiber post 1.6 mm | · 2,2: 12.87 ± 2.69 kg | ·2,1: 0% | |||||
· 2,3: Ribbond 1.6 mm | · 2,3: 12.87 ± 3.54 kg | ·2,2: 0% | |||||
· 2,5: Ribbond nonstandardized 2 mm | · 2,5: 31.95 ± 11.98 kg | ·2,3: 0% | |||||
·2,5: 0% | |||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Maxillary canines (N = 70, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | · Group 1: Titanium posts (ParaPost) + Silano-Pen (Bredent) + silane | 2 mm above the buccal CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 521 ± 153 N | No catastrophic |
· E-glass fiber post | · Group 2: Titanium posts + 30 μm CoJet-Sand (3M ESPE) + silane | · Group 2: 525 ± 91 N | fractures for | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + V-primer (Sun Medical) | · Group 3: 550 ± 149 N | any group | ||||
· Group 4: Titanium posts + 50 μm Al2O3 + Alloy primer (Kuraray) | · Group 4: 408 ± 122 N | ||||||
· Group 5: E-glass FRC post (EverStick) | · Group 5: 321 ± 131 N | ||||||
· Group 6: Polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + resin impregnation | · Group 6: 267 ± 108 N | ||||||
· Group 7: Resin composite core only, with no posts | · Group 7: 175 ± 70 N | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Single rooted teeth (N = 80, n = 10) | · Prefabricated metal post | Sound roots: control | Decoronated keeping a root length of 12 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Sound roots: control | Sound roots: |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Unicore | • Unicore: 1,472.78 ± 195.29 N | control | ||||
· E-glass fiber post | · EverStick | • EverStick: 1,265.94 ± 81.46 N | ·Unicore: 80% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Ribbond | • Ribbond: 976.74 ± 103.7 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 40% | ||||
· Parapost | • Parapost: 1,342.29 ± | ·Ribbond: 0% | |||||
Reattached fragments | 370.13 N | ·Parapost: 60% | |||||
· Unicore | Reattached fragments | ||||||
· EverStick | • Unicore: 1070.77 ± | Reattached | |||||
· Ribbond | 178.42 N | fragments | |||||
· Parapost | • EverStick: 1042.23 ± | ·Unicore: 58% | |||||
147.06 N | ·EverstickEverStick: 47% | ||||||
• Ribbond: 995.32 ± 88.75 N | ·Ribbond: 25% | ||||||
• Parapost: 1318.3 ± 240.9 N | ·Parapost: 68% | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | Uni-radicular mandibular premolar teeth (N = 50, n = 10) | · Cast metal post | · Group I/CD: cast dowel | Decoronated | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group I/CD: 484 ± 41 N | ·Group I/CD: 90% |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II/FD: single glass fiber dowel | · Group II/FD: 338 ± 28 N | ·Group II/FD: 20% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III/AFD: glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel with accessory fiber dowels | · Group III/AFD: 352 ± 34 N | ·Group III/AFD: 30% | ||||
· Group IV/DL: relined glass fiber-reinforced resin dowel | · Group IV/DL: 368 ± 24 N | ·Group IV/DL: 30% | |||||
· Group V/RRR: dowels formed with the help of polyethylene fiber ribbon-reinforced resin composite | · Group V/RRR: 256 ± 22 N | ·Group V/RRR: 0% | |||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Maxillary incisors (N = 75, n = 15) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Control group | Decoronated 2 mm above CEJ | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Control: 437.87 ± 32.81 N | Glass fiber post |
· Polyethylene fiber post | Glass fiber post | Glass fiber post | ·10 mm: 0% | ||||
· 10 mm | · 10 mm: | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | 740.21 ± 29.87 N | Ribbond fiber post | |||||
Ribbond fiber post | · 5 mm: | ·10 mm: 40% | |||||
· 10 mm | 425.18 ± 42.73 N | ·5 mm: 30% | |||||
· 5 mm | Ribbond fiber post | ||||||
· 10 mm: | |||||||
216.93 ± 53.39 N | |||||||
· 5 mm: | |||||||
299.62 ± 53.42 N | |||||||
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | Mandibular premolars (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | · Group 1: Only dual cure resin cement | Decoronated root length: 10 mm | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 181.26 ± 2.90 N | ·Group 1: 73% |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 2: Ribbond | · Group 2: 279.56 ± 0.80 N | ·Group 2: 0% | ||||
· Group 3: EverStick | · Group 3: 224.09 ± 3.43 N | ·Group 3: 60% | |||||
(vertical fractures simulated in all three groups) | · Group 4: 328.14 ± 1.06 N | ||||||
· Group 4: Unfractured control group | |||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | Maxillary premolars (N = 100, n = 10) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group 1: sound teeth (positive control) | Class II MOD cavities,1m above CEJ on both sides, with palatal extension cusps reduced to dimension 3 mm thick and 3.5 mm in height | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | · Group 1: 0.83 ± 0.15 N | · Group 1: 0% |
· Prefabricated polyfiber post | · Group 2: unrestored (negative control) | · Group 2: 0.14 ± 0.05 N | · Group 2: 50% | ||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group 3:MR | · Group 3: 0.43 ± 0.09 N | · Group 3: 50% | ||||
· Group 4:FR+ MR | · Group 4: 0.53 ± 0.07 N | · Group 4: 40% | |||||
· Group 5: glass fiber post (Reforpost) + MR | · Group 5: 0.41 ± 0.12 N | · Group 5: 0% | |||||
· Group 6: Reforpost + FR + MR | · Group 6: 0.48 ± 0.13 N | · Group 6: 10% | |||||
· Group 7:polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) + MR | · Group 7: 0.50 ± 0.17 N | · Group 7: 50% | |||||
· Group 8: Ribbond + FR + MR | · Group 8: 0.54 ± 0.14 N | · Group 8: 10% | |||||
· Group 9: polyfiber post (Spirapost) + MR | · Group 9: 0.79 ± 0.16 N | · Group 9: 30% | |||||
· Group 10: Spirapost + FR + MR | · Group 10: 0.84 ± 0.11 N | · Group 10: 20% | |||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | Reattached maxillary central incisor fragments (N = 60, n = 30) | · Prefabricated glass fiber post | Group 1: labiopalatal fracture | Group 1: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance and mode of failure | Group 1: | Group 1: |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | Group 2: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · Subgroup 1: 568.4 ± 18.65 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 20% | |||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 519.7 ± 22.36 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | |||||
Group 2: palatolabial fracture | Group 2: | ||||||
· Subgroup 1: prefabricated fiber post | · Subgroup 1: 533.4 ± 19.62 N | Group 2: | |||||
· Subgroup 2: Ribbond post | · Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 1: 13.3% | |||||
· Subgroup 2: 488.1 ± 34.41 N | ·subgroupSubgroup 2: 0% | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Mandibular first premolars (N = 90, n = 10) | · E-glass fiber post | Post length 2/3rd of the canal: | Decoronated at CEJ, root length 15 mm | Fracture resistance | · Subgroup 1A: 179.75 ± 33.52 N | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Subgroup 1A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1B: 166.84 ± 33.11 N | |||||
· Subgroup 1B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 1C: 250.33 ± 15.40 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 1C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 1D: 201.39 ± 41.44 | ||||||
· Subgroup 1D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Post length 1/2 of the canal: | · Subgroup 2A: 146.44 ± 13.53 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2A: custom polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2B: 159.97 ± 34.06 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2B: custom glass fiber post | · Subgroup 2C: 224.2 ± 32.9 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2C: prefabricated polyethylene post | · Subgroup 2D: 204.07 ± 29.63 N | ||||||
· Subgroup 2D: prefabricated glass fiber post | |||||||
Control group: core without post | Control group: 57.34 ± 14.03 N | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Maxillary incisors (N = 60, n = 15) | · E-glass fiber post | Group A: labiopalatal fracture | Labiopalatal: 2 mm palatally, 6 mm labially | Fracture resistance | Group A: | Not applicable |
· Polyethylene fiber post | · A1: Ribbond | Palatolabial: 6 mm palatally, 2 mm labially | · A1: 517.4 ± 72.0 N | ||||
· A2: EverStick | · A2: 725.5 ± 59.6 N | ||||||
Group B: palatolabial fracture | Group B: | ||||||
· B1: Ribbond | · B1: 423.2 ± 80.5 N | ||||||
· B2: EverStick | · B2: 617.0 ± 81.8 N | ||||||
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Mandibularfirst premolars (N = 48, n = 12) | · Zirconia post | · Group I: Zirconia post, | Not mentioned | Fracture resistance | · Group I: 463.5 ± 14.3 N | Not applicable |
· Prefabricated glass fiber post | · Group II: Glass fiber post, | · Group II: 425.2 ± 23.5 N | |||||
· Polyethylene fiber post | · Group III: polyethylene -woven fiber posts, | · Group III: 410.4 ± 18.6 N | |||||
· Quartz post | · Group IV: Quartz post | · Group IV: 385.2 ± 14.2 N |
Study (year) | Material used to form custom polyethylene fiber posts | Luting cement used | Thermocycling | Fracture testing equipment | Statistical analysis software | Statistical tests performed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | Variolink, Ivoclar | · Group 1 and 2: Zinc phosphate cement | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4202 | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group 3, 4, 5 and 6: Variolink, Ivoclar | · Student Newman-Keuls grouping | |||||
· 2 × 2 chi-square analysis | ||||||
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · 1,1; 1,2; 1,4: Cement-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 5655 | SYSTAT | · Two-way ANOVA |
· 2,1; 2,2: Flow-it Self, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · ANOVA test | |||||
· 1,3; 1,5; 2,3; 2,5: Flow-it, Pentron Clinical Technologies | · Independent Student t-test | |||||
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Subjected to thermocycling for 6,000 cycles between 5° and 55°C | Zwick ROELL Z2.5MA Universal Testing Machine | SAS program | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey test | ||||||
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Variolink II, Ivoclar | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Independent t-test | ||||||
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Group I/CD: Zinc phosphate, SS White | Not performed | Zwick Instron Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Group II/FD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | · Fischer exact test | |||||
· Group III/AFD: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group IV/DL: Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE | ||||||
· Group V/RRR: RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | ||||||
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | Monocem, Shofu | Monocem, Shofu | Not performed | LR 100 K digital Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 11.0 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | RelyX U100, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | Not mentioned | · One-way ANOVA |
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
· Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test | ||||||
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine 4444 | SPSS version 17 | · Kolmogorov-Smirnov test |
· One-way ANOVA | ||||||
· Tukey post hoc test | ||||||
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | ParaCore, Coltene | ParaCore, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | Excel and SPSS | · Student t-test |
· Chi-square test | ||||||
Thakur and Ramarao (2019) [34] | Luxa core Z, DMG | Luxa core Z, DMG | Not performed | Hounsfield Universal Testing Machine, S-series | Not mentioned | · One-way and two-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni adjustment test | ||||||
Khurana et al. (2021) [28] | Solocem, Coltene | Solocem, Coltene | Not performed | Instron Universal Testing Machine | SPSS version 23 | · One-way ANOVA and post hoc test |
Batra et al. (2022) [27] | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray | Not performed | Universal Testing Machine | SPSS | · One-way ANOVA |
· Bonferroni post hoc test |
Study | Specimens’ set-up |
Sample size calculation | Randomization |
Outcome | Statistical methods | Materials and methods |
Evaluation and results |
“Funding had no influence” | Risk of bias |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teeth size and form standardization | Teeth free of caries or restorations | Randomization of specimens | Implementation of sequence generation | Standardized teeth preparation | Standardized and replicable methodology | Material application measures were followed | Blinded Evaluation | Complete results | ||||||
Ramesh et al. [36] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcan and Valandro [31] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Braga et al. [26] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Aggarwal et al. [35] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Jindal et al. [30] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Sirimai et al. [33] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Ozcopur et al. [32] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Newman et al. [18] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Khurana et al. [28] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Kumar et al. [29] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Batra et al. [27] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Thakur and Ramarao [34] | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No information | Yes | Yes | Low |
Source | % of non-catastrophic fractures (repairable/favorable) | |
---|---|---|
Ribbond vs ETT without posts | ETT without posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcan and Valandro (2009) [31] | 100% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 27% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ribbond posts vs cast metal posts | Cast metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 0% | 90% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 10% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated metal posts | Prefabricated metal posts | Ribbond posts |
Sirimai et al. (1999) [33] | 20% | 90% |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 70% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 40% | 100% |
Ribbond posts vs prefabricated glass fiber posts | Prefabricated glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Newman et al. (2003) [18] | 100% | 100% |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 20% | 100% |
Aggarwal et al. (2012) [35] | 80% | 100% |
Jindal et al. (2012) [30] | 70% | 70% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 90% |
Ramesh et al. (2016) [36] | 80% | 100% |
Ribbond vs custom e-glass fiber posts | Custom e-glass fiber posts | Ribbond posts |
Ozcopur et al. (2010) [32] | 60% | 100% |
Kumar et al. (2013) [29] | 40% | 100% |
Braga et al. (2015) [26] | 100% | 100% |
CEJ, cementoenamel junction; CPC, cast post and core; FR, flowable resin; MOD, mesio-occluso-distal; MR, microhybrid resin; PP, Parapost Plus post; PWFH, polyethylene woven fiber/Heliobond resin; VPT, vario-passive titanium post.
ANOVA, analysis of variance.
CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.
ETT, endodontically-treated teeth.